Sorry was editing and accidently hit the button.MoonlightSonata said:My contention is about equality, not about defiance of "Western ideals" per se.
Refer to above post
Sorry was editing and accidently hit the button.MoonlightSonata said:My contention is about equality, not about defiance of "Western ideals" per se.
Any rejection of your arguments by myself will be based on my ability to use reason and logic. If you're going to argue that the innate reasoning abilities of man, formalised into dialectic systems (eg. deductive logic) is dependant on social context, then I'd like to see you prove those systems wrong. For they are, after all, about the pursuit of truth. If you want to prove reason and logic wrong, you will have to prove that their valid application, as set out in those systems, does not lead to truth. All I can say on that one is good luckAsyLum said:Haha, any argument put forward to suggest otherwise from your point of conditioning and social context would be cast down and rejected.
Haha. We should rename this day "ad hominem day". If you have something against my argument, best to attack it, not me.AsyLum said:whilst you declare yourself arbiter of all that is 'equal' and 'right'
That's true. Though I would rephrase that by saying:Not-That-Bright said:Forced equality is in many circumstances a bad thing...
i.e. I wasn't born a good writer, it's not right that people should have to buy my books, or that I should even be a writer if I'm not good at it. I should use the gifts that I naturally have.
Your very reasoning is based upon a logic and language, as you have put it, a linguistic based upon a cultural and socially contextual makeup which is dictated by various rules and customs. That is not to say that logic and reason are not inherent, rather the rules upon which you determine them, say Socratic dialectic, is expressed via some rules or conventions, these discourses are themselves the product of a context.MoonlightSonata said:Any rejection of your arguments by myself will be based on my ability to use reason and logic. If you're going to argue that the innate reasoning abilities of man, formalised into dialectic systems (eg. deductive logic) is dependant on social context, then I'd like to see you prove those systems wrong. For they are, after all, about the pursuit of truth. If you want to prove reason and logic wrong, you will have to prove that their valid application, as set out in those systems, does not lead to truth. All I can say on that one is good luck
Oh but i am attacking your argument, any indications that suggest otherwise i apologise. I am merely stating that the very argument you use to suggest that this "conditioning" could perform a) could very well, and is in play, in our very own socio-contextHaha. We should rename this day "ad hominem day". If you have something against my argument, best to attack it, not me.
They may well be expressed in conventions formed through different social contexts. But if you want to prove the foundations of my language and reasoning is somehow flawed, you must prove that those systems do not produce truths through an examination of their application. Since you cannot, the reason and logic that I am using must be defeated using that same logic.AsyLum said:Your very reasoning is based upon a logic and language, as you have put it, a linguistic based upon a cultural and socially contextual makeup which is dictated by various rules and customs. That is not to say that logic and reason are not inherent, rather the rules upon which you determine them, say Socratic dialectic, is expressed via some rules or conventions, these discourses are themselves the product of a context.
Yes, for whatever strange reason that may compel you to do such a thing, you could advance that argument. But I would endeavour to ensure that you failed wonderfullyAsyLum said:On the flip-side i could go into metaphysics and deny that man is inherently anything more than non-physical matter attached via some form of neuro-logical or spatial/temporal biosphere and a secondary metaphysical force which surmounts the psyche and the unexplainable, ala soul.
It is indeedAsyLum said:Haha, and thus why i said putting forward any argument would be useless
We come from two very different schools of thought, but ah, its fun to debate like this
Nah not dismissing them. I think MoonlightSonata's already provided the reasoning I was thinking along since I'm not as good in wordplay or debate.AsyLum said:transcendent: Dismissing my arguments? Why I must ask? Are "facts" and "figures" to your liking? Well, i'd really appreciate you providing some facts which suggest equality is right, without using any form of socio-philosophical reasoning.
What crap are you ranting on about? How would it force them to change their values - the ban would only be active in school jurisdictions, not for the entirety of society. They can wear what they like out of the school environment, thus it would have no discernable effect on their values.Wesnat said:A good thing about this debate is that none of us actually touched the point that the headscarves represent 'defiance', a paranoid view taken by Bishop.
Summary of the debate: equality is a reason why Muslim women perhaps shouldn't wear it (although I don't know the exact reason why they must wear it), but it is not a reason why it should be banned.
Banning headscarves is a sudden, forceful act that would require many Muslims to change their values, which would offend them. Why do we want to do this at times when relationships with the Islamic communities are volatile?
Besides, remember that Muslim cleric who criticised women who 'reveal too much'? What was our one response?
"Women should wear anything they want."
So let us not be hypocritical.
I know that some women probably are forced to wear the headscarves, but that's a whole different story isn't it? Many, many women of Islamic faith believe that it's the right thing to do. If you want to change their values, do it by presenting them with the other side of things, and let they decide for themselves what to wear.
These women believe that they must wear it all the time (in public, if I'm not mistaken), irrelevant of where they are. This ban still requires them to change their values to a certain extent. Otherwise, they won't be offended, which obviously is not the case.futile_blather said:How would it force them to change their values - the ban would only be active in school jurisdictions, not for the entirety of society. They can wear what they like out of the school environment, thus it would have no discernable effect on their values.
thats kinda like how i get offended when i see half naked peopleWesnat said:On a side note, I've read some letters in the newspapers. Apparently some people are offended by the sight of women wearing the headscarves...
There aren't many people wearing hijabs in our electorate...chubbaraff said:A case of the liberals not being so liberal. Would someone expel Bronwyn Bishop, I'm far from a liberal (see below) but she has pissed some liberals off with this one...freedom is such a selective word sometimes. If only she hung around people who wore hijab's she would understand that most of these women are not only highly educated but more Australian than her... SHAME